[RubyPinch]

Well, it can, but it does still make a weird line in the sand

You can be naked for the following reasons: Breastfeeding, Satire, Comedy, Artistic (but only photos of art), educational, and surgery (but only reconstructive)

but being naked because you didn't exactly have time to grab clothes while fleeing from being burnt up, is too far on the nudity scale?

[ImTalking]

But why do you get to question Facebook's idea of morality? If you don't like it, don't use the service. To question someone's morality solely due to it being different than yours is, bluntly, a waste of time.

[greggman]

I don't know if this is a good analogy but should the phone company be able to tell you what you can have conversations about? What makes FB different? Yes there are alternatives. There are also multiple phone companies.

I can guess some differences. FB conversations are semi-public, phone conversation are generally not. Except AFAIK except for ads you have to opt into most info in FB. To get news from this source you have to have joined/liked their group. So you opted in. Maybe some friend shares the post but you opted into friending them.

I'm not saying FB should or should not limit what you can post. Only that it's interesting to consider other examples. Why should the phone company not be allowed to ban certain topics but FB should?

[RubyPinch]

> But why do you get to question Facebook's idea of morality?

well, its literally a discussion on facebook's morality. Its a bit hard to talk about that without questioning it.

> To question someone's morality solely due to it being different than yours is, bluntly, a waste of time.

I'm not trying to change facebook here, I don't care /that/ much. I saw a discussion ("its facebook's morality") that I wanted to contribute to ("But its a weird sense of morality innit?"). Isn't that what discussions are for?